I have no doubt that Clarke is telling the truth and here's why

[Blue_Roses]

First, just read his book. The man is obviously an expert in his field and you can tell by the tone of his book he ate, drank, and slept his job. It was his passion and while he absorbed himself in his work, it's also obvious he didn't like incompetence, which makes it easy to understand his frustration with Bush. Clinton took terrorism seriously and they paralleled one another on their views and priority of it so I'm sure this is why the media says he is "softer" on Clinton--not to mention Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar to boot and contrary to what the right thinks, he did LOVE his job and was good at it!

Secondly, what does Clarke REALLY have to gain by lying and how does it suit his purpose for writing the book? Nothing. I honestly don't believe this is a partisan issue, but one of annoyance and frustration at an administration who had no interest in putting terrorism at the top of their agenda--something that he valued and had worked so hard on for many years. Just the mere fact that Bush is running on his "steady leadership" is enough to annoy ANYONE who knows this isn't true.

Third, his background. He is considered a "voracious" reader, one who was a great debater in school and struggled to get the money to get in college. It's just not his character and even though he may appear "arrogant" to those who criticize him, I think it is more "confident."

I'm extremely impressed by him and his work. Hell,I lived in Texas when Bush was governor so I know he's incompetent...so much that he couldn't name the President of Pakistan when asked by Barbara Walters when he was running in 2000. It's not hard to understand how Clarke could have probably wanted to pull his hair out working for him after working for Clinton who took this so seriously. No, I don't see this as partisan, but as someone who loved their work and was extremely professional in how he got things done.

However, will all that said, the right will still push it as a partisan issue to try and continue to discredit him, and for that reason, I don't think his book will change many, in fact, it may draw them to rally around Bush due to their denial and anger. It's becoming clear that books don't make much difference in changing the minds of those who are determined one way or the other. Swing voters--maybe--but the true determining factor in changing the minds of voters is someone who comes forward who is directly close to him--like Powell,Rice, Card, or anyone directly close to him. That's what made Nixon so vunerable when the tapes were heard. He was directly talking to Haldeman (Nixon's chief WH aide).

Even though Paul O'Neill and Clarke worked for Bush and I believe beyond any doubt they are telling the truth, they still are not "close enough" to be considered "reliable" to those who are in such deep denial. That's why I don't think these books are having the "impact" that some of us thought they might--even though they are opening up "questions" and inserting more "questions" in those who are sitting on the fence, it's still makes it hard to for those who are so to loyal to Bush to see how these books just "might" be true.

Just some thoughts while reading Clarke's book...

[74dodgedart]

1. People who agree with Clarke

Tom Maertens, who was National Security Council director for nuclear non-proliferation for both the Clinton and Bush White House.

Roger Cressey, Clarke's former deputy.

Donald Kerrick, a three-star General who served as deputy National Security Advisor under Clinton, and stayed for several months in the Bush White House

Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary for George W. Bush.

Joseph Wilson, the former ambassador and career diplomat

Greg Thielmann, former Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State Department.

Karen Kwiatkowski, a Lt. Colonel in the Air Force and a career Pentagon officer.

Rand Beers, who served the Bush administration on the National Security Council at the White House as a special assistant to the President for combating terrorism. Mr. Beers served in government for more than 30 years working in international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, intelligence, and counter-terrorism.

I'm sure I'm missing someone..

[rucky]

7. Sen. Graham

n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

2. I also believe he's telling the truth based on his book....

I just started it and have only gotten through the second chapter, but the thing that has struck me is what a REPUBLICAN Clarke is!! Now, I admit that I'm a true pacifist and am sickened by the US's intrusion into world situtations and the terrible things that have been done. Since Clarke approved of Reagan and Casey's providing Afghanistan 'fighters' getting Stingers to shoot down Russian copters, etc., I know this guy's views are counter to my own. So, therefore, I have to believe what he says about Bush.

[Old and In the Way]

3. I think Nixon's end came when Honiorable Republicans in the House voted

the impeachment bill out of committee. Notably, Bill Cohen of Maine. Sadly, the cowardly Republican Congresspeople rubber stampers are party to their ultimate demise....they are letting a total incompetent and criminally liable pResident destroy this country from within. When the rest of the country wakes up to the anti-American actions of this administration and the dysfunctional co-enablers in Congress, it will not bode well for this Party's future.

[eleny]

4. I read the Suskind book and what I get from these books

such as the one on Rove:Bush's Brain is ammunition. Clarke, Suskind et al are laying out facts I can use in discussions. I think that when swing voters hear the debates in the media, it gives them some pause that they might otherwise never had. I wouldn't expect the dyed in the wool true believers to ever change their minds. But I have seen it happen in my own family. I just don't hold my breath over it in general. What's happened with Clarke's book is that he put a dent in their shields.

Btw, thanks for your thoughts on the book. I'm still waiting for a copy. Thanks for the details you shared about RC and for your thoughts on the man.

[Blue_Roses]

5. that's a good way

to look at it: laying out the facts for discussion. I agree and I like having the facts since I'm around so many conservatives where I live.

Another thing that I get from reading his book his my own frustration. It's sickening how we went from an administration who TRUELY cared about the "little people" to one who's only "mission" is to make sure the fat cat's wallets are padded.

[peacetalksforall]

6. The book is a must read.

I wonder if anyone will ever come forward to refute what Clarke reports on the action and effectiveness of Clinton and Gore and Reno which to me was obvious, conscientious, and pro-active. They did their job. I'm only half way through, but I'm amazed at the contributions they made with the intelligence they had. Then, I'd like to see someone refute Clarke's statements on any or all of the facts. I believe the U.S. was fortunate to have him pushing, digging, connecting...relentlessly.

I hope the accusation of lies, if any, is all laid out.

You said..

"It's becoming clear that books don't make much difference in changing the minds of those who are determined one way or the other."

I think there is a difference when a book educates and provides as much history and background as Clarke's book does. What you say may be true about books written to pile on, unchecked - like the Coulter books. I don't see how anyone can come away from reading Clarke without changing their mind on something, even if begrudgingly.

[Blue_Roses]

8. I guess it's how you

look at it. I agree that when a book educates like Clarke's does it stands out. But I think when someone's mind is already "preset" it has to be something PROFOUND to make them change it. Depends on the person and how strong they feel I guess.

As far as books like Coulter and Hannity, I don't read them, 'cause I know they are liars.

[ThatPoetGuy]

9. Swing voters are more important than we are

to the outcome of the election.

One swing vote is worth two "base" votes -- because you're taking one from the other guy and adding it to your pile.

The point is, we don't need 100% of the vote to win. Our base, plus a majority of the swing votes, is what we need. If Bush's rep gets creamed enough that a lot of his base stays home on election day, then we do a pretty dance.